Tenacious Dr Ryan and the Battle for CO2 Sanity

Written by PSI Staff

Dr Judy Ryan is proving to be remorseless in her battle on behalf of Aussie climate realists. Once again she’s turning up the heat via official bureaucratic channels over government misrepresentation in official literature over carbon dioxide (CO2).

The cause of her ire are those discredited alarmist professors Steffen, Karoly and Flannery who seem to be the instigators of a blatant misrepresentation; science fraud, if you like. We’ve provided coverage of Dr Ryan’s ongoing saga here, here,  here, and here.

By either deceit or plain ignorance, Australian officialdom has for long been portraying CO2 as a pollutant in taxpayer-funded literature. This is graphically potrayed in misleading campaigns depicting an industrial chimney stack belching black smoke (see right).CO2 graphic But the emotive image is utterly false. CO2 emissions are colorless. But, more crucially, this benign atmopsheric trace gas (< 0.04%) is non-toxic, being the very stuff we exhale as we breath and plants require as food.

As a scientist, Dr Ryan, forthrightly put such facts across in her correspondence berating the dunderheaded professors. But the Ombudsman’s apparent continued disregard of her Formal Complaint, originally lodged against the then Department for Climate Change (DCC) on 29th August 2013, won’t deter Dr. Ryan. She reports:

“The DCC had 28 days to respond before we could exercise our right to take it to the Ombudsman. The elections intervened and DCC became the Department of the Environment (DOE). Nobody from DOE contacted us so we took the formal complaint to the Ombudsman on the 10th October 2013.”

Nothing happened for a while, but Judy was assured over the phone that her complaint was waiting to be attended to.

“Time passed, and passed, and passed, until on the afternoon of the 26th November 2013, I left a message on the Ombudsman’s answering machine, stating that If the matter was not dealt with within the next 48 hours we would lodge it again by public email. The following morning 27th of November an officer from the Ombudsman’s office contacted me, deeply apologetic because evidently even  though they had received it, the original formal complaint to DCC had somehow got lost in the change over.” Sounds like “Yes Minister” doesn’t it.

“So we had to go back to square one and resubmit the complaint to the DOE, which we did.”

 But then getting an unsatisfactorily reply from the DOE officer Dr. Ryan” took the complaint to the Ombudsman on 14th January 2014.

“As we know, it takes patience and tenacity to be a skeptic, but nevertheless it will be interesting and informative to see how they respond.”

Dr Ryan remains resolute advising, “Each formal complaint is a learning process for the next one.” 

Dr Ryan suggests concerned readers should feel free to copy and paste her lates letter (below) to use in their own formal complaints.

Dr Ryan’s latest letter:

Dear Ombudsman,

I lodged a formal complaint against the Department for Climate Change on 29th August 2013, receipt number CAS-820624-0JLWGQ. The Department for Climate Change is now absorbed into the Department for Environment and it’s policies and procedures still exist albeit under a new title “Direct Action”.

I have not received any response to the formal complaint from any officer from either the Department for Climate Change or the Department for the Environment, therefore I exercise my right to bring this formal complain to the Ombudsman for investigation.

I have it on record from Elisha Hill that the ombudsman cannot investigate any content of a formal complaint against a government agency UNLESS the complaint identifies policies and procedures, conducted by the relevant department, that are/were obviously incorrect. I bring it to the ombudsman’s attention that the policies and procedures addressed in this complaint are obviously incorrect and have been so since inception.

Firstly, Carbon dioxide is a transparent gas not black as is portrayed in the examples shown in the complaint. Secondly, the emissions from coal fired power stations around 90 -95% carbon dioxide which is a non toxic, environmentally beneficial, trace gas. Its solid state is Dry Ice, therefore impossible to be emitted from a coal fired power station.

The term ‘carbon’ when used as shorthand for ‘carbon dioxide is a complete misnomer. as they are two different things. Consequently, the terms ‘Carbon Emissions’ and ‘Carbon Pollution’ are based on obviously incorrect policies and procedures.

Any Australian can look these facts up in Wikipedia or any reputable science text book, then deduce that the policies and procedures of the relevant departments have been, and still are, fundamentally flawed. These incorrect policies and procedures have been crippling Australia’s industries, and financially penalizing and impoverishing ordinary australian citizens.

In closing, the examples in the attached complaint are only two out of many that are obviously based on obviously incorrect policies and procedures.

Regards Dr Judy Ryan

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (16)

  • Avatar

    Judy ryan

    |

    Thank you Darwin, and your brother. But for security reasons I cannot visit other websites. However, soon we will be collating an email list of skeptics all over Australia so that we can share information and implement activities in all regions. You are welcome to join.

    Also have a look at the Karoly thread on this website. It has some useful information.

    Cheers Judy

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe”]Excellent article.

    We need more like Dr. Judy Ryan!

    I got a chuckle out of the former name of the department: The Department [b]FOR[/b] Climate Change (emphasis mine). It reminded me of that Monty Python skit, Ministry of Silly Walks.[/quote]

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Judy ryan”]Hi Guys,

    For the next letter to Government Officials, who do you suggest I
    refer them to for independent advice. You obviously cannot recommend yourself.[/quote]

    Dr.Ryan,
    We all appreciate an honest question! We are three that prefer to disagree. The above is our best recommendation to your question in one hour.
    Please come back tomorrow for much more hissing and spitting. You will also have a much different “best recommendation”!

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Judy ryan”]Hi Guys,

    For the next letter to Government Officials, who do you suggest I
    refer them to for independent advice. You obviously cannot recommend yourself.[/quote]?”

    I would suggest “the people”, especially those that have demonstrated “they can do”, ignore all that demonstrate only “they can teach””

    Have a feeling of contentment, while still struggling to understand!

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Judy ryan”]…who do you suggest I refer them to for independent advice. You obviously cannot recommend yourself.[/quote]

    I suggest you personally really look into both “global warming” fiction and “greenhouse effect” fiction and refer them to a clear point expressed in plain English.

    Referring to people will not help.

  • Avatar

    Judy ryan

    |

    Hi Guys,

    For the next letter to Government Officials, who do you suggest I
    refer them to for independent advice. You obviously cannot recommend yourself.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Judy ryan”]Sure there is debate among scientists about the existence of the Greenhouse Effect. But at present it is better to unite and address the scam.
    Judy[/quote]

    Judy, the absurd physically impossible “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC is the foundation of the scam, along with the “global warming”.

    The NIPCC supports this foundation.

  • Avatar

    Judy ryan

    |

    Thanks for your comments Guys,

    Sure there is debate among scientists about the existence of the Greenhouse Effect. But at present it is better to unite and address the scam. Only when we defeat the scam will we be able to return to sensible evidence based scientific discussion again.

    Judy

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Rosco”]I note Greg is still up to his insulting self promotion.

    Clueless !

    Greg – why not actually do something other than trying to prove you are smarter than everyone else when it is so patently obvious that it is not the case ?

    Your cynicism must be personally demoralising and detrimental to your psychological health.[/quote]

    Unless Mr.Rosco is a sort of VIP here, I do not understand why this comment has not been deleted by the moderators, since it does not contain any argumentation and is a pure 100% ad hominem.

  • Avatar

    Jan-Ove Pedersen

    |

    Thanks to Dr Judy Ryan for putting up such an effort and patience fighting the fraudulant claims and policies of the Australian Government and Bureaucracy.

    Jan-Ove
    Norway

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe

    |

    Excellent article.

    We need more like Dr. Judy Ryan!

    I got a chuckle out of the former name of the department: The Department [b]FOR[/b] Climate Change (emphasis mine). It reminded me of that Monty Python skit, Ministry of Silly Walks.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    I note Greg is still up to his insulting self promotion.

    Clueless !

    Greg – why not actually do something other than trying to prove you are smarter than everyone else when it is so patently obvious that it is not the case ?

    Your cynicism must be personally demoralising and detrimental to your psychological health.

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote]Dr Judy Ryan is proving to be remorseless in her battle on behalf of Aussie climate realists.[/quote]

    Dr Judy Ryan referred previously to the NIPCC as an authority, which is not a sign of climate realism to me.

    As far as I remember, the NIPCC supports two central IPCC fictions: “greenhouse effect” and “global warming”.[/quote]

    I agree. They are intentionally remaining vague on these issues. And the fact that they haven’t acknowledged these issues removes any doubt that their motive are political.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”][quote]Dr Judy Ryan is proving to be remorseless in her battle on behalf of Aussie climate realists.[/quote]

    Dr Judy Ryan referred previously to the NIPCC as an authority, which is not a sign of climate realism to me.

    As far as I remember, the NIPCC supports two central IPCC fictions: “greenhouse effect” and “global warming”.[/quote]

    AFAICT, The NIPCC refers to “greenhouse effect” and “global warming”. as A public issue created by the IPCC and are funding many but not enough folk to take issue with the IPCC position. They are a political entity, just like you Greg The NIPCC seems to have much more political effect than you! Both sides of this “true issue” have used any science or enen any determination of “what is” or “what needs to be measured” The engineers
    at JPL and Lockheed would have been 25 years ahead of the academic scientists. with 10% of the funds! You can be “scientific” or “political” while having NO knowledge of “what is”!
    even wbhat neesd to be measured sides Please show your

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote]Dr Judy Ryan is proving to be remorseless in her battle on behalf of Aussie climate realists.[/quote]

    Dr Judy Ryan referred previously to the NIPCC as an authority, which is not a sign of climate realism to me.

    As far as I remember, the NIPCC supports two central IPCC fictions: “greenhouse effect” and “global warming”.

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    Keep up the fight Dr. Ryan, I wish you all the best.

Comments are closed